of the 1996 fell1996 telecommunications act it can stand behind a precautionary principle resolution and have faith in the recent court decisions in recent to win their day in court for all of us. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hello. my name is page hudson. i'm happy to be here tonight. i am have prepared comments so i'm just going to speak to you from my heart as a very concerned citizen who has been very steeped in this process of trying to educate our communities here in california and across the nation about the dangers of small cell close-range cellular towers. i often ponder why we're still having this conversation when there are over 2,000 peer review studies that show the dramatic impact that even lower levels of three and four g are having on our population.

ranging from headaches and discomfort and sleeping to the most severe which is of course glioblastoma and brain tumors. as a cancer survive or myself, my son is a cancer survivor and my friend is battling glioblastoma and her doctors have advised her it was a result of wireless routers and cell phone towers in her neighborhood. i'm asking the question about why we're still having this conversation because with this evidence at lower levels, our population is at risk for serious modifications in their d.n.a. and the answer is because of a very outdated, unjust telecommunications act in 1996 that says that we as a population cannot resist the roll out of these high-level small cell towers based on self-concerns. i can't imagine a reason more important than our health to do so and the burden of proof

should not fall on us to say it's dangerous when the telecommunications companies were before the senate hearings and were asked how much money they had spent in determining the safety of these higher level radiation small cell towers. the answer was not one single dollar. so, we are going to be used as guinea pigs as they rolled us out without your help to protect us. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> we're going to move on to rebuttal. >> two minutes or throw three minutes. >> three minutes. >> ok. here i thought i was just going to be all by myself today little did i know. thank you t. everyone who made comments. i think you've totally freaked me out. just so you know how i came here i actually started as just a person who had this thing posted on the pole right outside my house. i wanted to find more

information, honestly, wanted to find more information. i used my phone i like it. i have heard these things are controversial. i wanted to understand what was being proposed. there were questions about the directional nature and what was shared. this may be on the overhead. >> overhead? >> thank you. >> the only thing i could see was this, this arrow pointing at my house. that's how this started honestly. and, actually, the second antenna more powerful pole top, i wasn't worried about it at first because i could get no information on that. i contacted the same time i asked about the rs measuring and i asked for all the measure. should i even file a protest. i have no idea. i didn't get the information until after the protest dates. so i did file a protest. the reason i wasn't freaked out was because of this. it said that this is the planning department s.a.q.s are published on small cells and

it says that they're rounded but they're directional and they primarily are focused up and down the streets and not directly into the residents behind the pole. so i'm look ok, that's cool. that sounds pretty good to me. i'm going to be able to live with this thing 12 feet outside my bedroom window. it wasn't until after the protests were filed that i saw the memo that described the omni directional antenna on top which i did have to go to websters and make sure i knew what it meant. twenty-ninth an tellthe second an ten a antenna was pointed east. they e-mailed xnet to get clarified. >> cue leave that on the overhead. i didn't mean to interrupt. so that's kind of how i ended up here. this is a little schematic for

you. when i did start to get a little freaked out about the omni directional pole, this is our building. this is the pole. this is the bedroom. and this is my home office. so i was like whoa, this is, you know weird. i don't know about this. but i get it. it's fcc and we're not allowed to talk about it. what i want to say at the end of the day i'm really talking about a process here. obviously these are super controversial and the i should be dotted and t should be crossed and the information should be provided and i don't think they should be approved if that information isn't correct and after to after it to the residents. >> thank you and your brief was very well done for a first timer. >> thank you. >> we'll now hear from the permit holder. >> joe again with x net systems. i wanted to comment on a couple of comments that we've heard over the last few minutes.

there was a gentleman that referenced that what you are seeing here on these quote-unquote small shells on street lights and utility poles are the sale thing you see on roof tops on macro sites. it's true that some of the equipment used is the same but they are most definitely not the same thing. he referenced something about a site with an erp of 7,000 watts. it has a site of 154 watts. as a result, the exposure levels are very small. we mentioned in this particular report they note the highest level of exposure would be 18% of the fcc's limit. which again is five times below the maximum allowable standard. so i don't believe there's any error in our documentation. i don't believe d.p.h. made errors in this documentation. there may have been uncertainty

about exactly what this antenna is. is that direction right. the report is correct. the documentation we provided is correct. and we've tried to clarify that at the protest stage and again tonight. i can't -- she's right that i did not communicate all of this well or on time. none of that results in non compliance with any of the conditions of approval. i have apologized to her for being six months late in the response about exactly how she should go about obtaining readings when the site is installed. she has that information now. i think the board is familiar with how that process works. i'm happy to answer questions about that if there are still questions. i do believe that we have satisfied our requirements and the permit was rightfully issued. >> question. 5g or 4g. >> 4g. >> thank you. >> second question. what is the process to convert 4g to 5g? is it the equipment the same and is it the permitting process for

that? >> a lot of that is still in the works. from what we've seen so far the equipment is not the same. in fact it has a different form factor. we've worked with city agencies over the last several months. public works and public-health the puc mta the planning department the department of technology and we've all sort of reviewed what 5g might look like going forward. and it has a different form factor. >> you can't just flip a switch and converting it, is it administrative or is there a permit process involved? >> well, that's a complicated question. the answer to that question is complicated by the action the board of supervisors took recently where this type of facility would no longer require a permit regardless of whether it's 4g or 5g. >> the people involved should contact their legislators if they want a voice in this? >> agreed.

>> last question, are you the only person that responds or is there a team and when you are out of town or on vacation, is there an out of town or vacation message? >> i wonder if i can table that. i did want to respond that if a carrier wanted to upgrade a site -- even if it's not a 4g to 5g or it's an upgrade or change in the way the site operates, we would have to have an additional review by public-health. even if no other permits are actually required. the public-health -- >> there's an additional process, it's not just administrative. >> yes we are required to notify -- you've seen the conditions of approval. they've been drawn into question as part of this appeal. we have conditions of approval that require if we change something, it has to be reviewed by public-health to ensure that change does not result in conditions that would exceed the exposure limits. there's still a requirement to work with d.p.h. on that. >> are you the only person that responds?

>> no. this is sort of a perfect storm in that i was working with a small team of people, one of which was just let go right before this happened in may. i happened to be out of town. we hadn't really put into place how this should work going forward. >> murphy's law. >> it slipped through the cracks. i should have done better and i should have followed up by i didn't and i apologize for that. i hope we have a plan in place where that wouldn't happen going forward and we demonstrated in our time working with san francisco that we have been responsive to requests like that. this one fell through the cracks. >> thank you for being honest. thank you. >> thank you. anything further? mr. sanchez, anything further? >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> i have to say i consider this matter somewhat moot.

>> i agree. as my vice president has indicated prior with the current recent legislation from the san francisco board of supervisors, this would not no long are be heard in front of this particular forum. permits not required. it's administrative through the p.u.c. at this point. just as a side note, i mean, we've heard quite a few cases on this. we are very concerned. we've asked public-health to step up. we understand this is just -- for me personally, i feel that this is just like the tobacco industry in the '50s and as one person stated i too am a stage 4 cancer surviver my son is a cancer survivor and my daughter had kidney failure. i get it more than most people. at this point was the permit issued properly? i believe it was.

again, going forward this will not be in front of our body. i want to make a motion. >> just from a housekeeping purposes and because it was brought up and this is sen ovo i'd like to ask our council why or why not the precautionary principle that was mentioned is valid or invalid in today's hearing? you have answered it in the past. >> why think it was brought up to this particular case. that is a -- >> in public comment it was. >> it does not provide -- it does not put any duty on the board to take action and it compiles with article 25 of the public works code. >> thank you. >> motion. >> move to denial the appeal that the permit was properly

issued and the permit is no longer required. >> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to denial the appeal and on the basis that it's a permit is no longer required for this type of pole. that motion commissioner -- >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> tanner. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 5-0 and the appeal is denied. >> we're going to take a brief -- how many minutes you need? five-minute break please. we'll be back here at 7:25. thank >> welcome back to the regular meeting of the board of appeals. today's november 20th 2019. we are now on items 7a 7b and 7b. appeals number 19-071, 072 and

073. ingrid evans gissel and kay lean versus san francisco public works, bureau of street use and mapping subject property 2735 green city on june 14th, 2019 to gte mobile net of california lp of a personal wireless service facility site permit. construction of a personal wireless service facility and this is permit number 18wr-0185 and we will hear from ms. evans first. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, ingrid evans. for the record, all appellants, evans, klein pa tell would like to join in the brief and arguments of the others for appeal. the public works ordinance 190-19 that you talked about making a lot of these appeals moot. and i would argue in this situation, it is not moot.

the reason why it is not moot is because permit 18wr0185 was applied for and issued and appealed all before july 1st, 2019 and that is before the ordinance was enacted which was august 9th 2019, ok. ordinances are not applied retroactively unless the ordinance law expressly says so. this ordinance does not allow for it to be retroactive and it is not applicable and does not moot this appeal. that is a california supreme court decision that says that these laws cannot be retroactive. myers versus phillip morris company 8-28-2002 case. notice is a procedural due process requirement that is required under the california constitution and california state law. the california supreme court requires procedural due process

to be strictly complied with and notice is shall requirement under 1512 of san francisco public works code. here the notice must go to the residents of 150 feet to the cow hallow association posted inconspicuously. i would argue that the brief addresses all the issue of notice however the association notice i want to take on a little more details here. what we requested when we wrote to verizon we did not get a mailing list from them as to what addresses they sent the notice to. and we learned in the opposition for the first time, from d.p.w. and verizon that the mailing list included old addresses for the cal hallow association. it did not encloud the current president or the cal hallow association p.o. box. they are required to adhere to that requirement of notice and

if they don't this permit is procedurally flawed and cannot be granted. next issue is i would like to submit the evidence of the cal hallow association website that shows the proper address that should have been served in this situation and in administrative hearings like this. there's no procedure for a reply brief but the california supreme court and superior court allows for reply briefs and it's required if there are new issues raised. both the issues of 190-19 and the issue of notice which was different than the notice packet that we were provided when i requested notice from the subcontractor verizon are new issues that came up first on opposition so i'm entitled to reply of those issues and i'd ask the board to consider my supplemental evidence as a late submission. i have peeved approved and

verizon so it asked the court some place that for the notice issue. >> can you go on notice verbally. it's by the rules of this bod it's too late to sub submit anything further? there were two pictures i believe it's often procedurally they have not complied with the rule. lastly the issues of health and specifically the issues of public and private nuisance. the briefs verizon claimed that public and private nuisance are pre-empted and the health issues are pre-empted. specifically in california, common law is not pre elemented and they're common law remedies that are not pre-empted and can be brought. so there are fcc regulation

that's pre-empt the cities and counties from doing certain things regarding health and safety and we know that and we know that is a common issue but i don't believe the private citizen has been raised and i believe that is a proper remedy that can be brought to stop these permits from being issued. lastly the case that i raised earlier requiring a nipa and environmental impact. the united versus fcc case which was decided by the d.c. circuit i think mandates in this situation that the board hold off on issuing anymore of these permits or allowing these permits to go forward until there's been a comprehensive environmental impact and until there's been a study as president swig as requested from d.p.h. we've been waiting for that for a while and i not seen anything come out and we would be the

find of the health and safety of these issues. >> we'll hear from the next appellant. >> good evening. good evening. my name is ashley breakfield. i represent gissel who is here with me tonight on her appeal. >> we have a disclosure from president swig -- stop the time. >> represent me on unrelated issues and prior and their presence will not impact my view in anyway, shape or form on this item. >> my apologies. no problem, thank you. start the time. >> at the outset, i want to recognize that this board and its already been said tonight everyone stole my thunder has heard hundreds of these kinds of appeals before. we understand that you've heard many if not all of the same arguments before. i've watched hearings and

preparation for today and i know that despite the number of times you'll all phased these issues you've given thoughtful consideration to them and it's appreciated. the number of these appeals you've seen speaks to something important and that's the community members continue to be concerned about the facilities. and they feel uniformed left without recourse to have their concerns addressed and they look for whatever avenue they can find that allows them to alert the city about problems with the process and issues with potential health impacts. that avenue leads directly to this board. and i know you have also expressed some concerns. i know on the june 19th hearing the board engage in lengthy discussion about this at the june 26th hearing you asked officially for dph to update its 2010 memo and it was spoken about and they have not yet done it. i feel before getting into the merits because it's important to play my client's appeal and the other appeal we'll have into context. we recognize that your hands are tied when it comes to the over all regulatory process concerning wireless service facilities.

community members including my client are concerned about the lack of transparency and communication between city agencies the fcc and the public. whether it's regarding updates to help impact studies or changes to the permitting process. they feel left in the dark and they're made aware of changes when they find out an insulation is happening outside their bedroom window. these are concerns and the context is important. onto the merits. as stated in our brief our appeal has forming arguments and see if the other appellants tonight. the project is in violation of the d.p.w. condition that no polls are placed. the project is in violation of the condition that the personal wireless service facility not obstruct views. planning incorrectly determined the application meets the compatibility standard and the d.p.h. determined that the application complies with the public-health compliance standard. i was amused half heart touchdown remind medicine of my dark days in litigation and i

would argue their response doesn't address the issue. this is a poll that's not there and it's not a replica of the existing polls. my client didn't write the language and d.p.w. did. contrary that the basis this argument is not public works section 1500, stated in our brief d.p.w. notice for this project which went out to members of the public for providing members with information relevant to their concerns stated to no but polls be erected or placed in underground distance. they take it in face value and rely it and it goes to the heart of what i spoke about earlier the public is frustrated by a back door process.

>> they don't provide critical information and there's a clear condition it would not obstruct views. nothing cites the other d.p.w. orders. that's all the language says and that's all the public has to rely on when they're reviewing these notices they get. in particular a copy or reference of 184504 is nowhere in the final determination. d.p.w. cites to a single e-mail so it's unclear what got the e-mail that does recover to these orders. it's not the same as the planning department staff explaining in their approval how they concluded that a particular project will meet or not meet the various conditions of approval. on the third issue both verizon and d.p.w. dismiss the argument the project is on a site based on statements. both claim the wireless telecommunications services guidance cited by my client yet nowhere does it say that. either do d.p.w. or verizon

cites any evidence in support of their statement. they ignore the city planning data for wireless permit project cited on page 5-foot note 3. as noted there are other streets named excellent for wireless and the planning department approval failed to discuss alternative locations proved indicating that none were considered. on the issue of public-health which is what we've heard about tonight, i circle back to my comments at the beginning. as this board discussed in several hearings d.p.h. based on an incredibly outdated 1996 study. although several organizations have reviewed the effect of emissions from transmitters, no formal updates have been made. given pre 'emion issues, dph is not able to fully address potential health and safety issues. further, ftc has not provided the public with studies or reports explaining the long-term health impacts associated with human exposure and radio frequently energy and in an

argument dpw charges my client that emissions from the proposed wireless would exceed fcc limits. i believe it falls on city agencies while it's true that post insulation and operations verizon is required to test r.f. emissions the board that can imagine the residents of the this city, my client are weary of trusting a process that they feel has not been transparent. this is particularly so when d.p.w. in just a the prior brass essentially told the resident to do their work for them. as i noted at the outset you hear these appeals because there are a lot of concerns. and while the track record for these appeals is not good, concerned residents will continue to feel to bring these issues to this board. and to the attention of whatever city body will hear them. in the hope that these issues can be corrected, the process can be transparent and improperly approved to determinations like this one can be overturned.

thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the next appellant. >> hi, there. my name is kayle patel. i list at the address of the pole. >> overhead, please. >> it's right outside of my children's bedroom window. when you find out this is going up you start doing research as much as you can. your disturbed to learn that yes, it is very outdated reserve and that it refers to things being below the horizontal beam where this is directly in line with it. it feels very discouraging to know that there's no further health studies in that there

don't seem to be any fourth coming whatever health study have been done are not long-term and do not include the current technology. you've heard all this before. the thing that yao understand why why are there so many? why are there so many permits for these antennas. if you look at a map it's like measles. roxanne lives around the corner from me there's another one going down a block away at lion and green. i don't understand why this is being pushed on us. these are service providers and we don't want this service. it's continue a case of nimby because this is not a cell tower. these are antennas that only benefit the block it's on the but no one on the block wants it. the cell reception is fine. in fact it's a lot better now that the russians are gone. >> you live on that block.

>> they were scrambling. it's not necessary and especially in this magnitude. so the only thing that made sense to me after i thought about it is this is a land grab. the fcc is determined that you can't say no to them putting it on a pole. so of course verizon is going to be an idiot if they don't try to stick their flag on it because someone else will. it makes sense because there's no discipline imposed on how many antennas can be put up in the city. it's just a free for all. they're going to ask for as many permits. even though it's not needed. there's a cell tower on the hill above lion street that gives us great reception. i would beg that there would be some discipline imposed on the necessity for these towers. i know that your hands are tied.

in a lot of ways. i think that it's important for the municipalities to have control over what their constituents want. for health concerns, for property values, for just lack of any benefits, these should be revisited and hopefully there's a way that san francisco can reassert its authority to decide what it wants based on what its citizens want. and i think that what you are hearing is the citizens do not want this. they do not need it. and that their concerns are much greater than any benefit that comes from having these. so i beg that whatever discretion that you have, please use it towards an act of reason imposing discipline and finding

someway to mandate more studies. if you can please use your position and power to find ways to do this and hopefully allow san francisco to have more control over its regulations. i would appreciate that. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the permit holder. >> we haven't seen you in a bit, counselor. >> presence swig and vice president lass lazarus, we do our best to avoid bringing appeals facilities up before you and there are many applications going forward and i know you've seen many of them. i was counting, we've had two or three dozen come before you and we've been doing this for about 10 years and have hundreds of sites throughout san francisco. there's careful attention to

that. with respect to the history, i was renewing this sixth two-year utility condition permit for verizon wireless for small cells in san francisco. our first utility condition permit in 2008 includes the indemnity tee and insurance provisions required under the code for a separate permit for all of our facilities in addition to these individual permits. you probably remember that this whole process went before the board of supervisors. they looked at the design and they eliminated some design and allowed this design and we have to go through the san francisco public utility commission to get a master lease for these facilities and an individual site license which we've done for this facility as well. the design itself, you all remember omar mastry. i use the old name of ieee. i have not called you guys the board of permit appeals for a long time. we went through with omar mass re careful long two-year process coming up with this

design which was ultimately copied by at&t. we took the design before the historic commission in order for those facilities in front of historic locations in order to come up with a process that has been carefully worked through with the department of public works and the planning department in terms of their level of review and the department of public-health, you have some of the most rigorous review of any community that i know of with respect to these applications and 11-point point checklist and information reviewed by a public-health officer at the rig or and transparent see in san francisco is superb and san francisco has that reputation and it deserves to have that kind of process. as a result, we do have over 400 small cells in san francisco now that are operating providing an extremely vital service. you probably heard of the recent test of the earthquake warning system which will send text

message moments before an earthquake and that's the kind of robust capacity that verizon wireless and other carriers have to have to reach every member of the community with a moment's notice of an earthquake. the reason for our facilities are close to neighborhoods and they're low wattage this facility the lowest we get to 122 watts is designed to provide that kind of capacity and service in the time of crisis and in generally put the types of services that people demand. i want to quickly run through some of the issues raised. there was a notice issue raised in the briefing this evening that those arguments were cut back substantially. because ms. evans is not in the notice radius the initial information did not provide all the address notices. it is subsequently in the brief submitted by d.p.w. and verizon

wireless and it led to some of the confusion with respect to the cal hallow neighborhood association section 1512 of article 25, requires that we provide notice to the neighborhood associations at the address identified by the planning department. so the process is we go to a contractor who then goes to the planning department web page and down loads the addresses to be provided and that's the address we use. this particularly facility was noticed in september of 2018 and also in march of 2019 on the list there are throw representatives from the cal hallow association and on the planning department web page it says the neighborhood associations are responsible for insuring the address they provide to the planning department is up-to-date and that's the address we use for the cal hallow neighborhood association and we also notified the marina cal hallow neighborhood association so there were two neighborhood association that's were identified. with respect to the photographs

of the pole that appears in this september photograph, they consultant had two of the same polls and didn't plan the photographs. as the d.p.w. brief reveals all three are photographed in the march notice that went out and the notices were there and the photograph was mixed up. that is the issue of notice. there was an issue of sims. it wasn't raised this evening. we hadn't pointed the arrow. and i just have to say that d.p.w. says in this brief the radios are a parent from the sims. these radios are only 10 inches wife five inches deep and unless you look closely you don't realize they're there and that's the concept behind this facility. the antenna is the height of the pole by two feet. with these narrow radios next to it. it's clear and d.p.w. and their brief that a replacement pole is

not a new pole and i don't think it's ground district that's a question. if d.p.w. sun able or ever able to replace a broken light standard after it's been hit by a car was it was a new pole instead of a replacement pole we would be missing light standards in san francisco. there was also the claim that we didn't meet the compatibility standard somehow this block used. i've just got with you many times the planning department did a very careful review and they have to determine whether and they conclude this does not significantly detract from the defining characteristics of the residential neighborhood and it's clear. you have made that determination many times and that's based on that very careful design and we have no exposed cables and we have tight conditions in terms of the angle of the conduit that enters into the pole and the kinds of what the design must look like with respect to views you know that the code does not

protect private views and there is a condition of approval that we agreed to that says we won't obstruct lighter view and then the definition of it under order 184504 which is in order to obstruct the view it has to be within eight feet of a window and 20 inches in diameter and in this case i believe we're 33 feet away from the closest window and there isn't anyway we can obstruct views and we also believe that the planning department accurately confirmed that there's no significant impairment of any anesthetic attributes of any historic resource in the area. we don't think there's -- with this type of facility, this light standard type of facility any concern in that regard. with respect to r.f. there's been a substantial discussion about the health effects. this facility lowest wattage 122 watts. on the ground it will be .054% of the .056% of the fcc standards that is about 2,000

times pel owe the fcc standard. at the window you are looking at which is 33 feet away from the pole it's less than half a percent. 2,000 times below the window. in this case the antennas are directional, 80° and 260° looking up and down the street so there's no antenna that's facing that building. i guess i should add also in response to some of the comments that i mentioned raj of the hemet and edson company was on the subcommittee for the ieee which just concluded their review they review the standards every seven years and concluded earlier this year and confirmed that the standard should remain at the level that it's at with respect to emissions. the fcc has had since 2013 a review process regarding the standards and they announced earlier this summer they were going to reaffirm the standards. that's because the physics has

not changed. the frequencies have not changed. they've been around for a long time. and the standards are adequate and are what they should be and they are constantly reviewed. there was the discussion of nuisance and the appellant in that case cites the civil code section that this would be a nuisance and it particularly refers she says that a nuisance that causes injury to health and she's clearly referring to the rf emissions and the rf emissions constituting a nuisance and because we're within the fcc standards this is not an issue that's within your purview it would be a civil matter and as she pointed out as well as the d.p.w. brief points out and an issue if there is a nuisance that she would have that issue with verizon wireless. there isn't any because of the health effects of the one case that's cited regarding anesthetic impacts for nuisance and it's only the impact is

unreasonable and we're 33 feet away from a window. the case that is cite soldier dealing with a macro t-mobile site next to a home and your own order, your own language suggests there's no way this could be considered to be some kind of anesthetic nuisance. there was a question by appellant regarding whether -- [please stand by]

there's no exemption for historical sites under national and historic preservation. there is in addition to the ceqa review these facilities have already gone through gone through ceqa exemption and so forth the verizon has to comply with a national review. that review under fcc there's an agreement between epa and fcc that allow certain facilities to be exempt. any facility that's 33 feet, ten meters in the air is exempt. and there are other categorical exemptions.

it took the categorical exemption that the fcc had granted for small cell facilities and said no, you can't do that on tribal lands and you can't do it in the national historic situations. that review has nothing to do with the ceqa eir. totally different. the review done by fcc in terms of their environmental review. and it puts you through a different environmental review where you have to go through further environmental review with the fcc but has nothing to do with an eir. these are cot categorically and this facility certainly would be because of its low wattage. i think somebody is having a coughing fit. i believe that there was -- i think i covered all the appeal issues. i would be happy to answer any questions that you have. i personally continue to believe that cell phones save lives

tremendously. i've been going through a number of the north bay evacuations and so forth and the cell phone is the primary resource for any number of alerts that people rely on and the wireless companies particularly verizon wireless, prides itself on 80 percent penetration of generators so we can keep our facilities operating. with all the concerns you hear about verizon wireless or its facilities i hope you bear in mind i think every one of us has a situation where a cell phone came to a emergency situation that potentially saved their lives or saved them from injury or the potential harm or discomfort. with that i'll sit down or answer any questions you have. i'll be back for reboughtal. -- rebuttal. >> 4g or 5g? >> short answer or long answer? this is a 4g facility. it could not be converted to 5g without

going through d.p.h. review. >> as well as obtain the license under the new legislation for this site? >> we already have the license >> right. >> which raises the question of -- >> i know. >> yeah. we go through rigorous analysis. >> do you have any? go ahead. >> this is the most time you've ever used in all the time. >> i apologize. >> the attorneys were very good in their arguments so i get that. and as usual your brief is well-prepared the answering the appellant's question. your briefs are very concise. and they do answer it. you mention in time of crisis earthquake so these are small towers. so in that type of situation as in the fire, a lot of cell towers were not working. there's no backup battery for this. so during a major crisis, are these towers going to be physically working? >> there are a lot of crises that occur when the power

remains up. we recently had a shooting for example. >> you mentioned specifically earthquakes. in earthquakes as in '89 when i was here we lost power for a couple days and a good portion of the city. so without power does this tower still work? >> this particular individual small current we are not putting battery backup on these. we could put battery backup but due to aesthetics we are not. but there are many emergencies where the power is not cut out. i was also here in 1989 and my cope continued working. >> not mine. >> maybe you should consider verizon wireless. [laughter] >> and so like i said, when you mention earthquake in time of crisis, as in the fires, a lot of people's phones were not working, especially small towers that don't have a large backup battery and to answer a question why there are so many is because it's a small tower without a huge infrastructure with lots of wattage correct? >> i think you're asking me a couple two quick questions i

promise. and verizon had a very good record. we had 97 percent of our facilities operating in the 2017 north bay fires and they were all back up within a week. in the last instance we had one tower down. we had statewide 188 running on generator. so it was verizon remained very robust. the small cell network is very important for providing capacity. 72 percent of homes now. 72 percent of homes don't have a wire line phone. so there isn't another way to reach people in a time of emergency. and in that earthquake warning i'm talking about is before the earthquake. so your power is going to be on before the earthquake. i heard interesting discussions today with the city attorney about pg & e and main tearing power in the city and that's --

maintaining power in the city, and that's something the city supports. >> how many cities or counties in county ban in type of technology if any? >> ban this type of technology? there are a couple cities. the north bay seems to be a hotbed that have attempted to pass 5g moratoriums or if you review their codes like mill valley you will find that buried in the code is that the technology is not allowed unless it would violate state or federal law. and the state and federal law allow first for telephone corporations to place wireless facilities in the right of way subject to the cities and county's rights, recently confirmed in the t mobile san francisco case. the federal law doesn't allow any community to have any regulation that would prohibit the provision to service. so all of those any ban would fall in the face of those codes.

>> so no city or county in california could ban 4g technology? >> that's correct. and i've heard i think it was the mayor of danville who said we can adopt that find of feel-good ordinance like mill valley but that's all it is. when push comes to shove and we need to put in the facilities, we have the right to provide that service. that's because the state said it's a matter of statewide concern. and the nation said it's in interest of national concern. that people have the ability to use their cell phones here, new york, las vegas. >> thank you. you are a wealth of information. it's terrible to hear. but you are a wealth of information. >> i've been doing this too long. always appreciate being in front of this body. >> this may be appropriate for in anticipation of what i think is going to come in public comment. you might want to answer this in rebuttal

but i'll give you a shot to answer it now. >> thank you. >> so i've been here for a couple dozen of your appearances. so you have witnessed stacks and stacks and stacks of documentation which has been presented to this body which has been forwarded to the d.p.h. for further review on how technology these technologies are killing people or certainly causing grievous harm to people. when you stand up you confuse me or maybe the public, at least me. i'm easy to confuse. i'm not so smart. but i eee is electronic electrical engineers and the organization as well as the think tank, the fcc that's

communications, federal department. but what i never hear is where is the american medical association, where is the national institute of health, where is something that has to do with health. yet we come with these reams of paper from your opposition about all the people that are being harmed. can you tell me how many -- are there any lawsuits, whether they be class action, whether they be individual lawsuits, such as the ones that rereferenced, the tobacco industry in the earlier case, there was some reference. are there any outstanding lawsuits in this country that are on behalf of individuals who are claiming that they are being harmed from cell towers from cellular-related use or any telecommunications use whatsoever please? >> i am sure there are.

i have not ever had to defend one in the state of california and i'm not aware of any successful case. i may be wrong but i'm not aware of any successful case that has confirmed or created -- confirmed any kind of direct link or liability between cell phones and cancer. you're asking for information. there is information on the nih web page. there's information on the american cancer society web page. there's information on the world health organization web page as well as the fcc's web page that all go through the studies that have occurred and show that there's no proven direct link between cell phone, cell phone towers and cancer. and i have to say in reverse, there are many cases where cell phones have saved lives. i'm sure you've heard of many of them. we all remember the -- >> that wasn't the question. i was looking for --

>> and in the short-term if you have given your prior comments, and i respect your desire for an answer that's comprehensible. i would direct you to the scientific american article written october 23 last month something like the myth of the health risk of wireless activities. october 23 scientific american. >> i would invite you -- i don't know if it's -- i have to look to counsel, but you may want to send a note to all of us with that article for our interest and education for future cases so i don't have to ask you dumb questions like this. or maybe it's a smart question. i don't know. >> well, i'll confess that we don't try and address that issue. with you you there's plenty of educational

information out there, and we are not trying to argue left or right on that particular issue. we feel very strongly that the federal law is constantly reviewed and is the right course for the country. >> you can see, however. >> yes. >> the concern of the public where a statute that was -- i don't know if i had a cell phone in 1989. >> 1998. >> but, you know when you see a statute written in 1996 and the fcc hasn't updated it yet. as a corona dictate i know that i've had -- as a cell phone addict i know i've had upgrades since 1996, so you can understand the concern of the public that maybe things are behind the times with regard to study. and also you can understand i hope that even the city of san francisco in its wisdom has now a

ten-year-old a study which is almost ten years old and a few things have happened in 2010. so -- since 2010. so that's why i ask the question. with all these reams of stuff that people bring into us have there been any lawsuits? have there been any confirmed evidence of individuals who -- we heard one tonight, i don't know if it's real or not because that's -- for study tonight, we don't have any detail on it. but are people in fact dying from cell towers being installed in front of their homes? and are there any lawsuits related to that? >> i don't want to take your time. i can speak at length and if you would like to have some kind of forum on how to best address that, i would be happy to participate or with d.p.h.

the ada was written in 1990 and it's still applicable today. the 1996 act created certain policies and procedures. and those -- the fcc has just gone through -- opened up in 2013 a review of the standards and it's ready to close it. they announced they were going to close the review and keep the standard the same. at the same time there have been thousands of studies with respect to this effect. it's ongoing and compendiums of studies and peer reviews of studies and the smoking gun isn't there. people relate it to asbestos and tobacco. but these rules are reviewed by the epa the food and drug administration and a lot of other agencies that we didn't have back in those days. and we are happy to have d.p.h. review this issue carefully and thoroughly. >> thank you for answering the questions and thank you for

letting me take so much time. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department. you have 21 minutes. [laughter] >> if you choose to use it, you won't be allowed in the building next time. [laughter] >> good afternoon president, vice president, members of the board. i'm representing public works. we believe this permit was in compliance with the permitting procedures defined in article 25 for personal facility at the time of issuance. article 25 requires public works to refer wireless applications to the department of public health and the planning department. health department determined this application complies with article 25. public works subsequently issued a tentative approval and the applicant mailed and posted notice of this approval. public works held a public hearing to consider protests. following the hearing the director of public works approved the permit and noticed termination of distributed to the public.

the planning department is in attendance and the health department is not in attendance but is available to take questions and respond through e-mail. >> you have 20 minutes left. >> any questions? >> are you done? >> i am done >> any questions commissioners? >> the officer in the back, we put the chair there just for you guys so just in case >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> how many minutes does scott have? >> 21 minutes >> turn the mic off. [laughter] >> i intend to use them all. can i tell you a story? similar to the last case, i believe the subject application was properly viewed by the planning department. also similar to the last cases the planning and zoning protected location, planning protected location because it's within the same eligibility first bay tradition historic district. unlike the last one, it is not on issue with any designated view.

it's a non-did i go nateed nateed -- nondesignated street view street. the material is generally the responsibility of the planning department. and i just looked now at the mailing list and this location has not updated their contact information. that said in my experience, we've never had an issue communicating with the association. they are quite engaged and responsive to the notices we mail out. so the names that are on there the names i recognize for quite some time. if they choose to at any time they can update their mailing contact information. i do notice the contact information listed on their website is different than what they have given to us. but that is their choice. often neighborhood associations have specific chairs or subgroups that deal with land use. they want the thousands of notices that we send out every year,

not everybody else. with that, i'm available for questions. again given that this is on a puc it's my understanding under the rules that are in place this would not require a permit. >> quick question. do you have verizon or at&t? >> i wish i had verizon during the power outages because it sounds like it was working better. [laughter] >> thank you. we are now moving onto public comment. how many people are here for public comment? if you could line up against the wall so we can keep the process moving i would appreciate it. everyone has two minutes each. >> first speaker, please come up. first speaker. thank you. >> i'm liz buchanan.